Vitalik: Those who oppose small blocks will eventually believe in the idea that "soft forks are good, hard forks are bad", and I personally support t

After reading the two books "The Blocksize War" and "Hijacking Bitcoin" that introduced the Bitcoin block size debate in the 2010s, Vitalik wrote an article expressing his own thoughts on the debate. Vitalik said that when individuals personally experience the Bitcoin block size debate, they usually stand on the side of larger blocks, and sympathy for the larger block side mainly focuses on the following key points: Bitcoin's initial key promise is digital cash, and high fees may strangle this use case; Individuals do not believe in the "meta-level" story of the small block side. Small block supporters often argue that "Bitcoin should be controlled by users" and "users do not support large blocks," but they are unwilling to define who "users" are or measure what they want in any specific way; The small block side ultimately believes that "soft forks are good, hard forks are bad" (which I strongly oppose), and has designed a method to increase block size to adapt to this rule, although Bier acknowledges that the complexity has increased significantly, so many large block supporters cannot understand the solution. I think the small block side is not just "cautious," they arbitrarily choose different types of caution, choosing one (not a hard fork) and abandoning another (keeping clean and simple code and specifications) because it fits their agenda. In the end, the large block side also abandoned "clean and simple" and adopted ideas such as Bitcoin Unlimited's adaptive block size increase, which Bier (naturally) criticized heavily. The small block side is indeed conducting very inappropriate social media censorship to impose their views, ultimately leading to Theymos' infamous statement "If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users think these policies are intolerable, then I hope these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users leave."